The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail in a Rs 12.04 crore fraud case linked to a DLF Camellias property. The court cited the serious nature of economic offences and the need for custodial interrogation of the accused.
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail in an alleged high-value fraud case linked to a luxury property at DLF Camellias, observing that custodial interrogation may be required and noting that the applicant allegedly did not join the investigation despite repeated notices and non-bailable warrants.
Court's Observations on Anticipatory Bail
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief and must be granted cautiously, particularly in cases involving alleged economic offences. The Court noted that, at this stage, granting protection from arrest may affect the ongoing investigation.
The plea was filed seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR registered by the Crime Branch, Delhi, alleging offences such as cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy and misappropriation of funds of about Rs 12.04 crore.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the applicant along with Advocates Abhinav Sharma, Avtar Singh and Ayushi Agarwal. The State was represented by Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao, along with ASC Sanjeev Bhandari and Advocates Abhinav Kumar Arya and Aryan Sachdeva. Advocate Tanmay Mehta, along with other counsel, appeared for the complainant.
Details of the Alleged Fraud
According to the complaint, the complainant was allegedly induced to invest over Rs 12 crore in a proposed deal involving a high-end apartment at DLF Camellias in Gurugram.
It was alleged that the property was represented as having been acquired through a bank auction and that ownership would be transferred. The complaint further alleged that various documents, including ownership papers, possession letters and payment receipts, were shown to establish credibility. Keys to the property were also allegedly handed over. However, it later came to light that these documents were allegedly forged.
Investigation Findings and Applicant's Conduct
The prosecution has alleged that multiple co-accused persons were involved in the matter and are currently in judicial custody. It is further alleged that the applicant may have played a role in routing and layering the funds through different bank accounts and entities.
The Court observed that although the applicant was not initially named in the FIR, his name had surfaced during the course of the investigation through statements of co-accused persons and financial records. The Court also took note of the alleged recovery of certain materials and transactions which, according to the prosecution, require further investigation.
The bench further observed that the applicant allegedly did not join the investigation despite the issuance of notices, which led to non-bailable warrants and the initiation of proclamation proceedings. The trial court had also declined to cancel the warrants.
High Court Declines Bail Plea
The Court noted that alleged economic offences are serious in nature and may have wider implications. It was observed that custodial interrogation could be necessary to trace the alleged money trail and identify other persons involved.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, observing that the case does not warrant the exercise of such discretionary relief at this stage. The Court noted that the material on record prima facie suggests alleged involvement requiring further investigation. (ANI)
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)